Obama vs Romney, who are you voting for and why?

[Lapey]

Well, sir , after hanging out and enjoying all the fun you guys were having it finally occured to me that you all were all actually ignorant of the meaning of dog whistle Politics.
I then understood you just didn’t get it and were actually in the dark scatching your head.
over my post,I’m still scratching, I’m about to bleed form my scalp!
To help you understand, if like you can read up on the following notes I pulled up.
Sir, you did not offend me, I am used to these political threads on CA. Peace, Carlan
History of dog whistle politics History of dog whisle politics can be linked to democrat anchors at MSNBC.​

Innocent voters can be influenced to move a certain way toward the goal of the political party – which presently is prejudice through fear-mongering tactics and subliminal messages. In other words, dog whistle politics are in complete control of the upcoming election.

Now come on Carlan, do you really believe people are this stupid that subliminal messages can direct their thoughts and actions in these political debates that we partake in??? You should have kept quiet and keep us wondering whether you were just joking, because there is no way you can be taken serious with this MSNBC propaganda. Newsbreak here, these people on MSNBC and NBC are left wing nuts!

Now on the other hand, if you believe I fit that mold and I am being led by a nose ring by Carl Rove, I am offended. If you believe I am a participant in your ignorant scenario, I am offended.

I am a deacon in the Church who is taught moral theology, canon law, CCC, scripture, systematic theology, etc. you name it, for five years I studied what the Church teaches and now I find out none of it meant anything? The truth really is Carl Rove standing behind the curtain and maybe Rush Limbaugh telling me the infamous line, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.” Really??? Are you serious???

It’s time for you to open your eyes and listen to your Church, I do not toe the party line, I vote Catholic and I preach Catholic, I live Catholic! Why? Because I am Catholic, that is my party affiliation. What is yours?

My mother and I had this same discussion and it always ended up the same way you exited earlier, she would leave mad because we disagree so it must be that vast right wing conspiracy and she was always right because the democrats love poor people so much. Well she came to me about two months ago after Mass, I preached the homily, she was crying. It was one of the most special times, I will never forget it. She told me between the tears, “I finally get what you’ve been trying to tell me.”

This is what the Lord helped her understand, it’s not about republican or democrat, and it is about right and wrong. All of which the Church tells us is wrong for us to support, especially intrinsic evils like abortion, these issues are what is important, not the party. If we vote the party, and we don’t realize what that party stands for, then we don’t want to, we ignore it so we don’t feel like it is wrong. Well my sister, it does matter, it matters gravely.

Now if you want to go as far as believing little green men put these thoughts in my head, you go right ahead, but you are the one who will pull the lever. If you toe the democrat line and pull that lever for President Obama, know this, you own everything he and the democrat party stand for. Furthermore, the Church is in direct opposition to much of what he stands for, and much of what is in that platform.

 

[seekerz]

So you are voting for the candidate and not the platform, this is what he stands for is it not? How does that work? Please help me see the disconnection of the candidate from the platform. Don’t mean to be disrespectful, but this is tough to see.

Most politicians are tied to a party - whether it’s a marriage based on love or on convenience. There is nothing to prevent a person affiliated with neither party/platform from voting for a party-affiliated candidate. I believe that description pretty much defines the much-courted group that is commonly referred to as Independents…?

 

[Lapey]

BTW Carlan, I’m sure you know this, but just in case I shall help with some info on your reliable source.

Daily Kos ( /ˈkoʊs/) is a left-leaning American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a progressive point of view. It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party. Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia (“DKosopedia”), glossaries, and other content.

Daily Kos was founded by Markos Moulitsas (Kos from the last syllable of his first name, his nickname while in the military) in 2002. In 2007, its parent company, Kos Media, LLC, began a fellowship program to help fund a new generation of progressive activists. About a dozen contributing editors provide content for the site, with three to four new editors being chosen from the Daily Kos community every year.

As of January 2010, Daily Kos had an average weekday traffic of hundreds of thousands of visits.[2] It is financially sustained by advertising, with Google AdSense and Blogads. The ads focus mostly on activist causes, media, and political candidates. Members can also purchase an ad-free subscription to the site if they want.

Look at the site, it promotes same sex unions, and many non Catholic “progressive” ideas. So, who will you be in November, a progressive democrat, or a Catholic? It’s your choice.

 

[seekerz]

So we should just throw up our hands and quit?

You’re right. It’s also so-called “gay marriage” and the government telling the Church what to do.

And the economy and the fact that government can’t help the poor, a fact that will be displayed clearly if the democrats win in 2012.

Actually, it’s because it’s Church teaching.

You’re the one exercising prerogatives here.

You mean like looking good in front of your friends?

Even if it means making some who is pro-choice feel bad? Are you sure about that? Jesus’s actions angered the elite of Israel and it’s a big reason why He was put to death, death on a cross.

Not really sure what you’re trying to say here. You seem to be upset that I support Obama over Romney based on the dictates of my informed conscience. Why would that be a problem for you if you are similarly following the dictates of yours?

Nobody is saying to throw up hands and quit. I’m simply in favor of finding other ways (than the political route) to deal with the realities of a practice I oppose, namely abortion. As a rule, if doing something the same way has not worked for me once or twice, I find it makes sense to take a different approach. I apply this principle to most things in life. Not sure why some see it as a problem.

 

[Lapey]

Not really sure what you’re trying to say here. You seem to be upset that I support Obama over Romney based on the dictates of my informed conscience. Why would that be a problem for you if you are similarly following the dictates of yours?

Some of you talk as though you are a captive or an innocent bystander to your conscience. This is not what the Church teaches as for as following your conscience. Please go back and read the CCC on following the conscience, this time don’t skip the parts that talk about proper formation so that the conscience is not in contradiction with Church teachings and doctrines.

We don’t get a pass here, we are required to form our consciences in accord with the Church for the entirety of our life, it doesn’t end! Your job is not over. If you choose to stay where you are because of party loyalty, then this is your legal right, but know that you own everything that party stands for. We have no moral right to go against the Church.

 

[seekerz]

Some of you talk as though you are a captive or an innocent bystander to your conscience. This is not what the Church teaches as for as following your conscience. Please go back and read the CCC on following the conscience, this time don’t skip the parts that talk about proper formation so that the conscience is not in contradiction with Church teachings and doctrines.

We don’t get a pass here, we are required to form our consciences in accord with the Church for the entirety of our life, it doesn’t end! Your job is not over. If you choose to stay where you are because of party loyalty, then this is your legal right, but know that you own everything that party stands for. We have no moral right to go against the Church.

You seem to assume much. My preference for Obama over Romney is BASED on my reading of the CCC, my consideration of Church teaching and doctrines, and the impression of the beliefs and values of both candidates.

Romney could have had an edge on abortion if I believed that legal measures can serve to limit the number of abortions, but I remain unconvinced both of the practical value of that strategy and of his intention to pursue it…In addition I do not grade him potentially better on either the protection of marriage issue or the religious liberty issue. I actually grade him worse on the social justice issue and as a result, also worse from the viewpoint of ‘responsible leadership’. You may not agree, but that assessment in no way violates any teaching of the Church that I’m familiar with.

 

[seekerz]

You seem to assume much. My preference for Obama over Romney is BASED on my reading of the CCC, my consideration of Church teaching and doctrines, and the impression of the beliefs and values of both candidates.

Romney could have had an edge on abortion if I believed that legal measures can serve to limit the number of abortions, but I remain unconvinced both of the practical value of that strategy and of his intention to pursue it…In addition I do not grade him potentially better on either the protection of marriage issue or the religious liberty issue. I actually grade him worse on the social justice issue and as a result also worse from the viewpoint of ‘responsible leadership’. You may not agree, but that assessment in no way violates any teaching of the Church that I’m familiar with.

 

[tarboy]

That is your opinion, based on your experiences and understanding. I’m not asking you to change it, I’m sharing mine.

I agree with Stephen Colbert that there is are a large group of people in America who profess that this is a “Christian nation” while continuing to look upon their less fortunate brothers and sisters as lazy and unworthy of even the smallest amount of assistance. At the same time, those same people continue to believe that mega-corporations and wealthy people deserve to pay less and less for the benefits they receive from being in this country.

Based on my experiences, charity is not enough and cannot do everything to ensure a healthy and well educated population. Christians do not ALL tithe, and polls show that Catholics tithe far less than their other Christian brethren. Perhaps if EVERY Christian did tithe we would get closer to a country where charity could do more, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

You are mixing up too many issues that should be seperate

• I agree many people could do more to love their neighbor
• I disagree that forcing them to pay taxes to support their neighbor is Christian
• I think your focus should be on evanglizing true christian values to your brethern.
  When we help our neighbor, the money required is not that much

I think you are not qualified to set the rewards/benefit ratio by yourself. I think all should contribute and would support a flat tax without loopholes for the wealthy

Charity can’t create “a healthy and well educated population” because money is not the problem. Perhaps if you showed true christian charity with your local underserved you would help them become better parents and students. Assigning the Govt to do your charity has failed to work.

There will never be utopia and you can’t legislate the essential role of Free Will in our develpment.

 

[estesbob]

Not really sure what you’re trying to say here. You seem to be upset that I support Obama over Romney based on the dictates of my informed conscience. Why would that be a problem for you if you are similarly following the dictates of yours?

Nobody is saying to throw up hands and quit. I’m simply in favor of finding other ways (than the political route) to deal with the realities of a practice I oppose, namely abortion. As a rule, if doing something the same way has not worked for me once or twice, I find it makes sense to take a different approach. I apply this principle to most things in life. Not sure why some see it as a problem.

Informed by whom? Not the Church. Then reason it is a problem is it misleads other Cathoilics. That is why people are so diligent in refuting your opinions with direct quotes from the Church. Not to convince you but to keep other Catholics from being misled

 

[rlg94086]

Informed by whom? Not the Church. Then reason it is a problem is it misleads other Cathoilics. That is why people are so diligent in refuting your opinions with direct quotes from the Church. Not to convince you but to keep other Catholics from being misled

 

[CMatt25]

You seem to assume much. My preference for Obama over Romney is BASED on my reading of the CCC, my consideration of Church teaching and doctrines, and the impression of the beliefs and values of both candidates.

Romney could have had an edge on abortion if I believed that legal measures can serve to limit the number of abortions, but I remain unconvinced both of the practical value of that strategy and of his intention to pursue it…In addition I do not grade him potentially better on either the protection of marriage issue or the religious liberty issue. I actually grade him worse on the social justice issue and as a result, also worse from the viewpoint of ‘responsible leadership’. You may not agree, but that assessment in no way violates any teaching of the Church that I’m familiar with.

I’ve decided that’s it in a nutshell. Catholic Romney voters don’t agree with Catholic Obama voters on who to vote for. But both groups have their practicing, faithful Catholics with informed consciences according to CCC and Catholic teaching. Their considerations lead them to vote for differing candidates. That appears fine with the USCCB which in its intro to Faithful Citizenship said they don’t give a scorecard of issues nor direction on how to vote. Appears to me until a Catholic’s bishop directs them to vote for Romney and says one must do so to remain a faithful Catholic, looks to me like the Obama voters are on as solid ground as the Romney ones. Even though the Romney posters might not agree. In any case I’ve tired of the Romney posters attempting to judge whether the Obama ones have consciences informed by the Catholic Church because of who they are voting for. When the bishops themselves have said they aren’t giving direction on who Catholics must vote for. Until all the bishops become clearer if they require all Catholics to vote Republican, I imagine this debate will on and on and on. Yes I know about tax exemptions. But if it is the truth Catholics must vote Republican, I would think the truth is more important than avoiding taxes.

 

[CMatt25]

BTW Carlan, I’m sure you know this, but just in case I shall help with some info on your reliable source.

Daily Kos ( /ˈkoʊs/) is a left-leaning American political blog that publishes news and opinions from a progressive point of view. It functions as a discussion forum and group blog for a variety of netroots activists whose efforts are primarily directed toward influencing and strengthening the Democratic Party. Additionally, the site features a participatory political encyclopedia (“DKosopedia”), glossaries, and other content.

Daily Kos was founded by Markos Moulitsas (Kos from the last syllable of his first name, his nickname while in the military) in 2002. In 2007, its parent company, Kos Media, LLC, began a fellowship program to help fund a new generation of progressive activists. About a dozen contributing editors provide content for the site, with three to four new editors being chosen from the Daily Kos community every year.

As of January 2010, Daily Kos had an average weekday traffic of hundreds of thousands of visits.[2] It is financially sustained by advertising, with Google AdSense and Blogads. The ads focus mostly on activist causes, media, and political candidates. Members can also purchase an ad-free subscription to the site if they want.

Look at the site, it promotes same sex unions, and many non Catholic “progressive” ideas. So, who will you be in November, a progressive democrat, or a Catholic? It’s your choice.

I didn’t know “progressive” was a dirty word. You ask who will she vote for? A progressive Democrat or a Catholic? Mitt Romney is not a Catholic. He professes Mormonism. Barack Obama was baptized in the United Church of Christ, professes Christianity and has worshiped Christ in St John’s Episcopal near the White House where he has received communion. If you’re speaking about VP, I read Dolan say he doesn’t agree with Ryan on everything but is personal longtime friends with him. But Dolan made it clear both Ryan and Biden are Catholics.

 

[CMatt25]

Continued with sources…

Dolan has stressed that he does not agree with Paul Ryan on everything and when he praises his longtime friend Paul Ryan, he is only “speaking personally".

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=1

And Dolan welcomed the fact that there is a Catholic on each party’s ticket. “Do you not think it’s a cause for celebration in the Catholic community in the United States of America that the two vice-presidential candidates are Catholic? Did you ever think it would come to this?

“We’ve got two men who — and you can disagree with one of them or both of them — say they take their faith seriously, who don’t try to hide it, and who say, ‘Hey, my Catholic upbringing and my Catholic formation influences the way I think.’ Not bad. Not bad.”

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=2

 

[ishii]

Either way, the “mills” run. As a Catholic, I am obliged (and happy to) do all in my power to oppose abortion. If I disagree that legal remedies can do much, if anything, to contain the problem, that is my personal stance and I will not force it on anyone else with name-calling or accusations.

You’re wrong - its not “either way the mills run” its " the mills run because (mostly Democrat) pro-abortion NARAL politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Obama ensure they are running legally and are voted into office by Catholics with poorly formed consciences. Obama didn’t even vote against partial birth abortion! And yet you support him while saying " I’m doing everything in my power to oppose abortion." Seriously? How convenient to say, " the abortion mills will run regardless of who we vote for, so let’s vote for the NARAL politicians who want to keep the slaughter legal." Right. Racism will always be with us, so let’s go ahead and vote for the Klu Klux Klan guy. This is where your logic leads: “Ho hum, guess 15 million babies killed is just another issue among many - like food stamps, welfare, and green energy, etc.”

Ishii

 

[ishii]

You seem to assume much. My preference for Obama over Romney is BASED on my reading of the CCC, my consideration of Church teaching and doctrines, and the impression of the beliefs and values of both candidates.

Romney could have had an edge on abortion if I believed that legal measures can serve to limit the number of abortions, but I remain unconvinced both of the practical value of that strategy and of his intention to pursue it…In addition I do not grade him potentially better on either the protection of marriage issue or the religious liberty issue. I actually grade him worse on the social justice issue and as a result, also worse from the viewpoint of ‘responsible leadership’. You may not agree, but that assessment in no way violates any teaching of the Church that I’m familiar with.

Again - the bottom line: you profess to be pro-life and “do everything you can to oppose abortion” yet you support Obama who supported legal infanticide. That says it all, Seekerz.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

I am not going to vote for Obama under any circumstances, and I simply can’t vote for Romney. I intend to vote for neither man, but may do so for a third party candidate.

You probably already posted on this, but what, in a nutshell, is the reason why you can’t bring yourself to effectively oppose Obama by voting for Romney? If, as you imply, Obama’s views on the sanctity of life are that ghastly, what is it about Romney that is so bad that you won’t vote for him? Is it because he’s too pro-business? Would cut spending/entitlements too much? Not a “gotcha” question, just curious.

And on a different note, when you see so many otherwise good Catholics willingly and enthusiastically vote for Obama, do you not feel even the slightest desire to counter their vote by voting effectively against Obama? (effectively = voting for Romney)

Ishii

 

[CMatt25]

Continued with sources…

Dolan has stressed that he does not agree with Paul Ryan on everything and when he praises his longtime friend Paul Ryan, he is only “speaking personally".

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=1

And Dolan welcomed the fact that there is a Catholic on each party’s ticket. “Do you not think it’s a cause for celebration in the Catholic community in the United States of America that the two vice-presidential candidates are Catholic? Did you ever think it would come to this?

“We’ve got two men who — and you can disagree with one of them or both of them — say they take their faith seriously, who don’t try to hide it, and who say, ‘Hey, my Catholic upbringing and my Catholic formation influences the way I think.’ Not bad. Not bad.”

nationalreview.com/articles/314272/dolan-ryan-great-public-servant-kathryn-jean-lopez?pg=2

So as Dolan says, you can disagree with Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan. You can disagree with Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden. But it’s not bad that both say their Catholic formation influences them.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’ve decided that’s it in a nutshell. Catholic Romney voters don’t agree with Catholic Obama voters on who to vote for. But both groups have their practicing, faithful Catholics with informed consciences according to CCC and Catholic teaching. Their considerations lead them to vote for differing candidates. That appears fine with the USCCB which in its intro to Faithful Citizenship said they don’t give a scorecard of issues nor direction on how to vote. Appears to me until a Catholic’s bishop directs them to vote for Romney and says one must do so to remain a faithful Catholic, looks to me like the Obama voters are on as solid ground as the Romney ones. Even though the Romney posters might not agree. In any case I’ve tired of the Romney posters attempting to judge whether the Obama ones have consciences informed by the Catholic Church because of who they are voting for. When the bishops themselves have said they aren’t giving direction on who Catholics must vote for. Until all the bishops become clearer if they require all Catholics to vote Republican, I imagine this debate will on and on and on.

Both sides rely on Church documents for their position, and both sides make the case that the respective other side engages in unduly selective reading and interpretation of these Church documents. Go figure.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And on a different note, when you see so many -]otherwise/-] good Catholics willingly and enthusiastically vote for Obama, do you not feel even the slightest desire to counter their vote by voting effectively against Obama? (effectively = voting for Romney)

Ishii

Correction applied.

 

[Al_Moritz]

The Catholic teaching only allows abortion in the case of danger to the mother—things along the lines of ectopic pregnancy where the chance of survival of the pregnancy is basically zero.

False. The Catholic teaching never allows abortion in any case. I am just wondering why not one of the self-prclaimed faithful Romney-supporting Catholics here has pointed this out.